RAMPADA MAJHI Vs. NAGENDRANATH CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against an order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah dismissing the petitioner's appeal against conviction and sentence passed under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800, in default to S.I. for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on December 9, 1961 the Food Inspector of the Bally Municipality came to the grocery of the petitioner at 210 Gossainpara Road, Bally and took samples of co3oanut oil, put them into three dry and clean phials and sealed and labelled them properly in the presence of witnesses. One sample was made over to the accused, another was Bent to the public analyst while the third was preserved in the municipal office. The public analyst reported the sample to be adulterated and then this prosecution was initiated after obtaining sanction from the Administrator of the Bally Municipality.

(3.) THE sample of coconut oil was taken by the Sanitary Inspector of the Bally Municipality, Nagendra Chakravorty on December 9, 1961. The Municipality was later superseded by an order of the State Government and Sri S.M. Guha was appointed Administrator. The Administrator accorded sanction to the prosecution on February 12, 1963. It is submitted that the Administrator S.M. Guha not the local authority within the meaning of Section 20 read with Section 2(viii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the magistrate therefore had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. It is argued that in the case of Bally Municipality, the local authority within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was Chairman and commissioners of the Municipality and there is nothing in the said Act which showed that because of supersession of the Municipality the Administrator comes within the meaning of local authority. Section 554 of the Bengal Municipal Act 1932 did not authorise an Administrator to perform the powers and duties of the Chairman under 'other laws' but only permitted him to perform the duties and powers under the Bengal Municipal Act itself. There is an amendment of the Section 554 by the amending Act 21 of 1954, substituting the words 'or any other Act, or any ordinance or any rule, bye law or notification or subsidiary legislation made under the provisions of the Act or such other Act or such ordinance or such regulation' for the words 'or any rule or bye law made thereunder' but this amendment did not receive the assent of the President and therefore it cannot be held to amend or extend the definition of 'local authority' as contained in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In support Of this contention, the learned Advocate has referred to a single Bench decision of this Court reported in 1958 Cri L.J. 169 (2) (Cal), Administrator, Howrah Municipality v. Byron and Co. The learned Judge held as follows: